@DannyBeckett that can be normal, that underwing valve is probably an overpressure release. This happened occasionally in the EMB-145 I flew when we were fueled from underground tanks or otherwise cold fuel, and then as the fuel heated and expanded in the wing, we would get flow out of the relief valve like that. It would also happen if we were overfuelled.
but hard to say for sure given the size of that puddle and my lack of knowledge on that planes fuel system
@DannyBeckett "Perfectly normal". <clicks on dictaphone> "Note to engineering department: Fuel tanks in our plastic plane should not be made of kerosene-soluble plastics."
@DannyBeckett 747-100 and -200 aircraft would occasionally vent fuel during rotation. It was no cause for concern, but it might freak out the tower controllers.
"Seminar Canceled, Winter Storm Warning! Don't Get Caught out in the Cold-Av Wx 101" This Seminar has been cancled due to a Winter Storm Warning! It will be reschuled to a later date.
Crossing the border from Canada into the US several years ago, I was asked what sort of work I did and I replied that I was a technical writer. The border officer asked if I'd written anything he might have read. I responded "Doubtful. I write the sorts of books that once you put them down, you just can't pick them up again." Unfortunately, the same can be said of most any aircraft Approved …
@roe I think it's basically that they prevent the fuel from immediately sloshing to the bottom of the tank (sloshing can include top to bottom, right?). — egid11 hours ago
@egid might work, so you should probably stay away from inverted flight when running low on fuel then?
@DannyBeckett When I logged in here I saw a 1 in a circle, which when I clicked it I think it said it was from you concerning an article I might be interested in. When I tried to follow to that, it disappeared. Could you resend at you convenience (if I'm recalling what I saw, which is getting to be a problem).
@Terry Hey, yeah it was just the link that's above, Aviation Mentor: Gyronimo! - it's a new weight & balance app (amongst other things). I thought you might be interested in it because I saw similarities to your w&b program, but then I wasn't sure whether it was completely related. That's when I removed the notification. That'll be why you saw it, but then it went. Sorry about that!
22 January 1968: At 22:48:09 UTC (6:48:09 a.m., EST) a Saturn IB rocket lifted off from Launch Complex 37B carrying LM-1, an unmanned Apollo Program lunar lander, into a low-Earth orbit. The purpose of the Apollo 5 mission was to test the Grumman-built LM in actual space flight conditions. Engines for both the descent and ascent stages […] The post 22 January 1968 appeared first on This D…
22 January 1970: Captain Robert M. Weeks and crew flew the Pan American World Airways Boeing 747-121, N736PA, Clipper Young America, New York to London on a 6 hour, 43 minute inaugural passenger-carrying flight of the new wide-body jet. Aboard were a crew of 20 and 335 passengers. This painting showing the arrival at London […] The post 22 January 1970 appeared first on This Day in Avia…
@voretaq7 I wouldn't say that they were for pilot comfort. They were necessary because of high control forces (sometimes higher than even possible for a pilot to overcome) before better ways were invented.
didn't the FAA have the A/FD legend online at some point? I was looking for it to tack on as a comment to your answer but I can't find the damn thing now
(I know where it is in Foreflight - that counts for credit right?! :-)
@Lnafziger if you can find the link to the page that precedes it that'd probably be better (I think they remove those at the end of the cycle now because they're bastards)
yeah the search page has the cycle date encoded in the URL too
Good to see healthcare.gov isn't the only government website designed by incompetent hyenas on crack.
oh and @DannyBeckett if my brother designed the airman certificates Orville and Wilbur would have Manga Hair and the flyer would probably have a dragon tail of some kind...
I vaguely recall from looking into it years ago that it's basically what Cirrus had to do (if it's all-electronic you need redundant power to all the components). Of course I also recall that I looked at the price of the STC kits and said "Yeahhhhhhhhhh no. You know how much panel candy I can buy for that?!"
@voretaq7 Ummm, the manufacturer has to get the STC approved, and they have all kinds of stuff to demonstrate...? That kind of stuff? Or "I want to put this STC in my airplane, what do I need to do?"
@Lnafziger somewhere in their pile-o-stuff they talk about how you can replace both mags, but you need to add redundant power (and I'm not sure the STC covers that)
@voretaq7 btw, Cirrus uses magnetos for ignition. They have electric systems for backup because essentially everything is electric (there's no vacuum instruments).
> Our P model ignition has an internal three phase brushless alternator that produce enough power to sustain the ignition when the engine is turning 800 rpm, or more.
I don't think I'd ever completely replace the mags (I'd always leave the left mag / IC as a traditional magneto) but the idea of an electronic ignition system with variable advance is tempting
@voretaq7 Haha, again, the throttle is both a throttle and prop control, but it works off a cam system - not a computerized thing, and the mixture is still a separate control.
21 January 1968: A United States Air Force Boeing B-52G-100-BW Stratofortress, serial number 58-0188, of the 380th Strategic Aerospace Wing, was flying an Airborne Nuclear Alert mission as part of Operation Chrome Dome. The bomber, call sign Hobo 28, had a crew of seven and was armed with four B28FI two-stage radiation-implosion thermonuclear bombs carried […] The post 21 January 1968 app…
I suppose you could, but only the left mag has an impulse coupling (so it's the only one that's supposed to be firing at cranking RPMs anyway) & if the other one fires early it can make the engine kick
(then again my starter turns the damn engine too fast anyway - sometimes I get kickbacks even on the left mag)
@BretCopeland the last of the Cherokee 140s at NFI (38193) did not like to start. Hot, Cold, Warm, Bribed with kitten effigies - doesn't matter. ALL OF ITS NOPE.
@BretCopeland I know on the fuel injected Cessnas they wind up with vapor lock in the injection system (& have to run the boost pump in "high pressure" mode to actually get gasoline moving again) - I don't have these problems though, my engine is a product of the 1940s :P
In a multi-engine airplane, if an engine failure occurs at the exact moment that a decision needs to be made to reject or continue the takeoff, and there is plenty of runway available to do either, which one is statistically safer?
A more technical way to ask the same question would be: When th...
@BretCopeland how different is the plumbing between the two? Pretty much everything I've flown in has had a Lycoming engine in it, I've never had to dive into a Continental maintenance manual :)
@Lnafziger I threw a multi-engine tag on that since it's multi-specific (surprisingly we didn't have that tag already)
obviously when your one-and-only engine fails you just cry (and pray) :)
@voretaq7 again, I don't really know how different they are internally. I've asked an A&P that sort of question once, but don't remember the details of his response.
Lesson #33: Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there.
I don't know if this appropriate to ask on the site, but is there such a thing as a "hard" V1 as opposed to a "conservative" V1? I can imagine that on very long runways, V1 is very conservative and the pilot could decide to abort even after passing V1.
@PhilippeLeybaert I guess to answer your question, right now I use "standard" V1 speeds and don't calculate the higher ones, even though I could (theoretically) do it safely.
@PhilippeLeybaert And V1 can be limited by things other than runway length too (brake energy comes to mind - BAD things happen when you exceed that....).
@PhilippeLeybaert Aborting past V1 is very very bad. Now if you can calculate a higher V1 that is in compliance with the flight manual, you could use that. But never abort above a known V1 speed. :)
When V1 is announced by the non-flying-pilot, the flying-pilot removes his hand from the throttle and you continue no matter what. If that hasn't happened, then you abort.
In this case there is an "exact moment". It is the announcement of V1.
If V1 has been obtained (even a fraction of a second ago) then you know that you have enough runway to continue the takeoff and climb to a safe altitude.
But you don't necessarily know that you can safely abort.
Anyway, I'm leaving work. Buzz me later (or ask on the site) if you have more questions about V1!
In a multi-engine airplane, if an engine failure occurs at the exact moment that a decision needs to be made to reject or continue the takeoff, and there is plenty of runway available to do either, which one is statistically safer?
A more technical way to ask the same question would be: When th...
The Hangar
The Hangar